Talk:1523 papal conclave

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1523 papal conclave article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Roman Curia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roman Curia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Roman CuriaWikipedia:WikiProject Roman CuriaTemplate:WikiProject Roman CuriaRoman Curia articles

Catholicism Mid‑importance

1523 papal conclave is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

European Microstates: Vatican City

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Vatican City portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (assessed as High-importance).

CONTENT

This page, as originally written, depends entirely on Baumgartner. My own research into the contemporary accounts suggests that his is not a reliable account. I have tried to fix things where I could, and have added some documentation (which refutes what is attributed to Baumgartner, e.g. the notion that Wolsey got 20 votes, and the notion that Enckenvoirt wasn't there), but I don't think I have succeeded in improving the article. It departs from the sources too many times. The whole text, I fear, needs to be junked and a new start made by somebody. The map of the battle does not add anything to the argument.

For a well sourced, and very different, treatment of the Conclave, take a look at

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/SV1523.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicedomino (talk • contribs) 05:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicedomino (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Vicedomino[reply]

I don't oppose the addition of more primary or secondary sources, but it is dangerous to throw out sourced secondary content on this basis (see WP:PRIMARY). Please try to note the disagreement in sources rather than nuking one in favor of the other. Savidan 05:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One's original research into thecontemporary accounts is not suited to Wikipedia, which is simply a reader's guide based on published sources. Deleting unbiased statements supported by cited sources because one disagrees with them is probably not the best approach.--Wetman (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that, when I added other material it was because the article was a one-source article, and possibly in violation of Baumgarten's copyright. I note also that, as I write in 2016, nobody else has stepped up in the last seven years. --Vicedomino (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Del Monte

I note that the reference in the text to Gianmaria del Monte is red-bracketed. He can be found listed in Wikipedia as Pope Julius III. The actual del Monte at this Conclave of 1523, who allegedly nearly won, is Antonio Ciocchi del Monte, Suburbicarian Bishop of Albano. I don't know if the Gianmaria del Monte comes from Baumgarten, but whether it does or not, it is wrong. Giovanni Maria Ciocchi del Monte was made a cardinal by Pope Paul III in 1536. --Vicedomino (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]